Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/92

SUB ENGINEER BSNL CHINGAVANAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUSHPAMMA GEORGE KUTTY - Opp.Party(s)

MAYA R MANI

23 Nov 2017

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL.NO.92/2016

 JUDGMENT DATED :23.11.2017

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.396/2014 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam, order dated : 31.12.2015)

 

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN         : PRESIDENT

SRI.V.V.JOSE                                                   : MEMBER

APPELLANTS

1.  BSNL,Chingavanam, SubEngineer. Pin 686 531
2. Deputy General Manager (CFA), BSNL Office (Main), Vayaskarakunnu, Kottayam-686 001 represented by Assistant General Manager Office of PGMT BSNL, Kottayam Moly Dominic

                   By Advocate Maya R.Mani

RESPONDENT

          Pushpamma George Kutty, Kuzhivelikalam, Ithithanam P.O,    Changanasery-686 535

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

Opposite parties in C.C.No.396/14 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for short “district forum” , Kottayam have this filed appeal challenging the  Order of  forum directing them to pay compensation of Rupees Five thousand with cost of Rupees Two thousand five hundred to the respondent/complainant.

2.Complainant who has taken a land line telephone connection from  opposite party laid the complaint alleging deficiency of service by opposite parties in restoring connection of her phone when it became faulty on several occasions.  According to her the fault remained unattended and the phone was out of use,  once  for more than one month, despite  repeated demands made for restoring connection rectifying the defect. She, therefore, claimed compensation for injury suffered by him from opposite parties imputing deficiency of service.

3.  Resisting the claim on behalf of opposite parties, one of its officers filed a version, in which among other contentions it was contended that a consumer complaint against opposite parties was not maintainable.  Complaints alleging fault over his telephone connection had been attended to and for the period during which connection could not be provided rectifying the fault discounts in telephone charges were provided  in bills, according to opposite parties.  During July and August 2014 telephone of complainant was working properly and, later, on 9.9.2014 a complaint was filed by him alleging  phone connection was faulty. That complaint was rectified only on 30.10.2014 since the fault occurred in underground cable during  tarring work done by P.W.D, and its detection  was a time consuming process.  There was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and whatever injuries suffered on account of fault of  telephone line discount for non use as covered by Rules was provided to complainant in the bills issued and, therefore, complaint is only to be dismissed according to  the opposite parties.

4.  No oral evidence was adduced by parties , and, evidence of complainant consisted of Exts.A1 to A8 and that of opposite parties Exts.B1 and B2.

5. Appreciating the materials produced  the district forum found merit the case of complainant that her land phone with internet connection was faulty on several occasions and her complaints were not attended in time by opposite parties.  Concluding  there was deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties the district forum ordered them to pay compensation of Rupees Five thousand with costs of Rupees Two thousand to the complainant.  Aggrieved by that Order they have preferred this appeal.

6.  We heard the counsel on both sides and also perused the records.  Though learned counsel for appellants/opposite parties pressed into service the challenge against maintainability of the complaint contending that complainant cannot claim the status of a consumer as against a telecom service provider it was not pursued since that challenge had been held to be meritless by National Commission.  Learned counsel for appellants vehemently argued that awarding of compensation and cost to complainant was not correct since  the fault of  telephone connection arose under circumstances beyond the control of opposite parties and also that she had been adequately compensated  granting discounts in the bill for  the period during which her phone remained out of use.  She had filed a complaint only on 9.9.2014. Since the fault acquired due to multiple under ground cable damage caused during the tarring work of P.W.D and detection of fault of such cable was a time consuming process there was delay in its rectification.  Such delay for rectification was not on account of any wilful default or latches of opposite parties and there was no deficiency of service on their part, according to counsel.

7.  Perusing the Order of the lower forum with reference to the submissions made by the counsel for appellants we find that no material was placed by appellants to substantiate their contention that the fault of phone was on account of tarring work done by PWD causing multiple damages to under ground cables. Though a contention of that nature was projected other than producing the fault card and payment details of the complainant for use of her phone nothing more was produced. Conceded by the land line of the complainant remained faulty from 9.9.2014 till it was repaired in 30/10/2014.  Appellants have no case that they had intimated  the complainant after receiving complaint on 9.9.2014 till it was rectified that the fault was on account of damages to underground cables caused by tarring work of  PWD. Evidently they have taken  their own time to rectify the fault even assuming that fault arose as contended by them.  Discounts were given for the period in the bill when phone remained out of use is a meritless defence especially where it is seen that opposite parties did not respond to complaint.  A telephone connection is not a luxury but a necessity and where its use is  prevented or obstructed on account of some fault and a complaint is lodged it is required to be properly responded. Even assuming that detection of fault was time consuming still the service provider has to intimate the complainant steps taken and also the approximate period within which the fault would be repaired. We also find no merit in the contention of opposite parties that previous to 9.9.2014 no complainant was lodged over the fault of his  phone.  Records produced by complainant indicate that there was previous complaints even alleging that phone remained out of use for more than 2 ½ months due of its fault.  Deficiency of service imputed against opposite parties is established in the case and as such compensation and cost, and the quantum fixed thereof, are found to be just and reasonable, and it  does not warrant any interference.

Affirming the Order of  the District Forum, appeal is dismissed directing both sides to suffer their costs.

 

JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN:  PRESIDENT

 

 

V.V.JOSE                            :  MEMBER

pr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE KERALA STATE              CONSUMER DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSIION

VAZHUTHACAUDE,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

 

 

          JUDGMENT IN  A.92/2016

         DATED : 23.11.2017